Originally posted by adderVXI Why cant we just have a flagging system like SWG was? All those people wanting the pvp excitement can have it. That would cut out the killing of level 2 people in starter areas though which is perhaps the real goal.
I've been trying to make ppl listen by suggesting the same thing, just look on the first page and in other threads.
That system is the best possible one, that will make most ppl happy, and it's the closest we will get to open world pvp.
The problem is that nobody listens. lol
Your right, the only people that could be unhappy with that set up is the aholes that want to gank pve'ers over and over.
The flagging system of SWG is actually better than full open world pvp in my opinion. There was nothing more fun than going into Coronet flagged on my jedi or main and walking around all the other players too afraid to go overt and attack me because they didn't want to die and become flagged for pvp themselves.
But you don't have a problem with different server rules do you? As long as you can PVP on a PVP server you and all the other PVPers(i play Age Of Wulin but i don't want my favorite pve built on pvp) should be happy, right?
Originally posted by adderVXI Why cant we just have a flagging system like SWG was? All those people wanting the pvp excitement can have it. That would cut out the killing of level 2 people in starter areas though which is perhaps the real goal.
I've been trying to make ppl listen by suggesting the same thing, just look on the first page and in other threads.
That system is the best possible one, that will make most ppl happy, and it's the closest we will get to open world pvp.
The problem is that nobody listens. lol
Your right, the only people that could be unhappy with that set up is the aholes that want to gank pve'ers over and over.
The flagging system of SWG is actually better than full open world pvp in my opinion. There was nothing more fun than going into Coronet flagged on my jedi or main and walking around all the other players too afraid to go overt and attack me because they didn't want to die and become flagged for pvp themselves.
But you don't have a problem with different server rules do you? As long as you can PVP on a PVP server you and all the other PVPers(i play Age Of Wulin but i don't want my favorite pve built on pvp) should be happy, right?
Pretty sure different server sets falls under those bad design decisions he mentioned. You know, with having to maintain two different sets of codes, and balance design and all that.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Purple Monkey Dishwasher Crap, someone just decided that meant EQNext was going to be set in space!
I thought that was the new npc class that players could hire to run around with them. If PvP occurs, the Purple Monkey Dishwasher runs out and absorbs the damage so the players can run away.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The flagging system of SWG is actually better than full open world pvp in my opinion. There was nothing more fun than going into Coronet flagged on my jedi or main and walking around all the other players too afraid to go overt and attack me because they didn't want to die and become flagged for pvp themselves.
But you don't have a problem with different server rules do you? As long as you can PVP on a PVP server you and all the other PVPers(i play Age Of Wulin but i don't want my favorite pve built on pvp) should be happy, right?
You don't need different server rules if you use a flagging system. If you don't want to pvp then just stay neutral and don't attack anyone who is red. You can sit back and watch the fighting as a spectator.
Besides, it adds to the atmosphere of the game to have people with different preferences regarding pve and pvp all sharing the same space.
Pretty sure different server sets falls under those bad design decisions he mentioned. You know, with having to maintain two different sets of codes, and balance design and all that.
This is how I feel. I would like one server actually. I would say that whatever is in place, they are aware of people's concerns about ganking/spawn camping/griefing in general.
Originally posted by TheJoda ...I wasn't aware so many people had crystal balls at home.
Chuckle, another month of idle speculation to go. Maybe more.
In the meantime, every agenda you've ever heard of has an iron in the fire.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Pretty sure different server sets falls under those bad design decisions he mentioned. You know, with having to maintain two different sets of codes, and balance design and all that.
This is how I feel. I would like one server actually. I would say that whatever is in place, they are aware of people's concerns about ganking/spawn camping/griefing in general.
Oh my god, if they could pull off a single server, I would be ecstatic. This is actually my number one hope for the game. It's such a difficult thing to do technically, though I don't know how feasible it would be.
Originally posted by adderVXI Why cant we just have a flagging system like SWG was? All those people wanting the pvp excitement can have it. That would cut out the killing of level 2 people in starter areas though which is perhaps the real goal.
I've been trying to make ppl listen by suggesting the same thing, just look on the first page and in other threads.
That system is the best possible one, that will make most ppl happy, and it's the closest we will get to open world pvp.
The problem is that nobody listens. lol
Your right, the only people that could be unhappy with that set up is the aholes that want to gank pve'ers over and over.
The flagging system of SWG is actually better than full open world pvp in my opinion. There was nothing more fun than going into Coronet flagged on my jedi or main and walking around all the other players too afraid to go overt and attack me because they didn't want to die and become flagged for pvp themselves.
But you don't have a problem with different server rules do you? As long as you can PVP on a PVP server you and all the other PVPers(i play Age Of Wulin but i don't want my favorite pve built on pvp) should be happy, right?
Pretty sure different server sets falls under those bad design decisions he mentioned. You know, with having to maintain two different sets of codes, and balance design and all that.
I really don't think so, SOE and Smed have always be pretty good at server rules, i don't think they would consider that bad game design.
The flagging system of SWG is actually better than full open world pvp in my opinion. There was nothing more fun than going into Coronet flagged on my jedi or main and walking around all the other players too afraid to go overt and attack me because they didn't want to die and become flagged for pvp themselves.
But you don't have a problem with different server rules do you? As long as you can PVP on a PVP server you and all the other PVPers(i play Age Of Wulin but i don't want my favorite pve built on pvp) should be happy, right?
You don't need different server rules if you use a flagging system. If you don't want to pvp then just stay neutral and don't attack anyone who is red. You can sit back and watch the fighting as a spectator.
Besides, it adds to the atmosphere of the game to have people with different preferences regarding pve and pvp all sharing the same space.
But i'm saying if they have different server rules you won't mind, will you? After all you can still PVP on a server where everyone else shares your passion for PVPing, why wouldn't you be happy.
If there are not enough pvpers to fill the server then it obvious that it's not as popular as some of you would have us believe.
The main thing is that you can PVP, right?
Why would i want to be a spectator, i play other PVP games that are built on that system.
First off there were too many PvP and PvE threads fighting over what Everquest Next is going to be, so instead of answering each one, I made my own thread.
So I grew slighty concerned as well as some of my guild-mates about the idea of the EQ IP being changed from a PvE Centric game to a Non Consensual PVP game.
I opted to Ask a number of the Developers.
The Lead Game Designer answered, and here it is:
So there you have it folks a Bad design decision. Now this most likely means that PvP will continue to be all the rage on the PvP Servers(as it has ALWAYS been) and PvE'ers will continue to be safe from torment while enjoying their gaming experience.
I'll agree that non-consentual PVP is a bad design decision if universally applied, however I'm not so sure your conclusion is sustainable.
They might surprise you with the way they decide to go about this.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
And there are people who love the sims. I hear it's very popular.
The problem with these threads is that one tidbit from someone at sony is then measured against "an individuals idea" of what constitutes a sandbox.
The only definition that matters is what Sony has in mind as that's the game they are releasing.
so people can go on and on about "what a sandbox is" but unless it's the exact definition that Sony is adhering to then many people are going to be wrong.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I really don't think so, SOE and Smed have always be pretty good at server rules, i don't think they would consider that bad game design.
Smed is also an avid EVE player, who is a member of Goons (arguably one of the most powerful "guilds" in EVE) and is a regular at the FanFest in Iceland. I imagine he would consider the single server system to be a much more eloquent way of expressing a virtual world.
And, since the whole idea of EQN is to be this groundbreaking endeavor, I'd also imagine they would want to push the envelope in as many ways as possible. A single shard massive fantasy world has never been done before, and that would be sure to raise some eyebrows.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
could also mean all servers will have a form of PvP, just not non-consensual as that would be a bad decision. Not all pvp is non-consensual.
Edit: Not saying that it will be that way - just saying you are living in your own little world also. There will be answers August 2nd - why not wait and see.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
Maybe he doesn't think forced pvp is a bad design decision? I don't really like the idea of forced pvp, but that doesn't make it a good or bad design decision, it just means I don't like it. Bad design decision to him could mean that their is faction pvp but not ffa kill your neighbor pvp. Or ffa pvp with no consequences could be a bad design decision to him so they designed it with ffa pvp but with penalties of some kind. In the context of your question there are dozens of potential "bad design decisions." I have never seen a game where players took such tiny bits of information and made such sweeping inferences from them.
First off there were too many PvP and PvE threads fighting over what Everquest Next is going to be, so instead of answering each one, I made my own thread.
So I grew slighty concerned as well as some of my guild-mates about the idea of the EQ IP being changed from a PvE Centric game to a Non Consensual PVP game.
I opted to Ask a number of the Developers.
The Lead Game Designer answered, and here it is:
So there you have it folks a Bad design decision. Now this most likely means that PvP will continue to be all the rage on the PvP Servers(as it has ALWAYS been) and PvE'ers will continue to be safe from torment while enjoying their gaming experience.
Spoken like a true PR flack or politician... ^^ Avoiding Bad Design Decisions is usually a Good Idea (tm)... ^^ But keep in mind that judgement plays a role in deciding what a Bad Design Decision is, and that dear old Smed brought us the NGE, so I'd not really trust his judgement that much...^^
If they wanted to be open and above board, they would simply state in clear terms what type of PvP EQN would have. The fact that they aren't being open, speaks volumes.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
Maybe he doesn't think forced pvp is a bad design decision? I don't really like the idea of forced pvp, but that doesn't make it a good or bad design decision, it just means I don't like it. Bad design decision to him could mean that their is faction pvp but not ffa kill your neighbor pvp. Or ffa pvp with no consequences could be a bad design decision to him so they designed it with ffa pvp but with penalties of some kind. In the context of your question there are dozens of potential "bad design decisions." I have never seen a game where players took such tiny bits of information and made such sweeping inferences from them.
I agree. Instead of waiting until 8/2/13 a little over 1 month from now they are blowing every little vague statement out of proportion. which is, in my opinion, why SOE answers every question vaguely. So that people will jump and shout and give free word of mouth for the game.
The flagging system of SWG is actually better than full open world pvp in my opinion. There was nothing more fun than going into Coronet flagged on my jedi or main and walking around all the other players too afraid to go overt and attack me because they didn't want to die and become flagged for pvp themselves.
But you don't have a problem with different server rules do you? As long as you can PVP on a PVP server you and all the other PVPers(i play Age Of Wulin but i don't want my favorite pve built on pvp) should be happy, right?
You don't need different server rules if you use a flagging system. If you don't want to pvp then just stay neutral and don't attack anyone who is red. You can sit back and watch the fighting as a spectator.
Besides, it adds to the atmosphere of the game to have people with different preferences regarding pve and pvp all sharing the same space.
But i'm saying if they have different server rules you won't mind, will you? After all you can still PVP on a server where everyone else shares your passion for PVPing, why wouldn't you be happy.
If there are not enough pvpers to fill the server then it obvious that it's not as popular as some of you would have us believe.
The main thing is that you can PVP, right?
Why would i want to be a spectator, i play other PVP games that are built on that system.
Any decent mmo shouldn't be able to split up the game into servers of pve or pvp only. Both aspects should be tied into one another so they are both essential.
I don't care if you want to be a spectator or not. I'm just saying the option is there and a different server isn't necessary. Not everything in the game will be catered to your own preferences.
Thank god they will not listen to you people who want another themepark with housing, in a world with no risk reward, where you are safe to insult act an ass and not get touched because you don't consent.
that's what that statement means to me.
If EQ was EVER about PVP first, the people that are expecting this game to force PVP might have a valid point, but it never has.
I dislike forced PVP, most days I have at most an hour to play, I don't want to spend that hour trying to avoid people with far too much free time on their hands waiting to kill me repeatedly.
Originally posted by TheJoda Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.
It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.
I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.
no it doesn't it just says they aren't into bad design decisions. That could mean HE considers pvp a bad design decision but here is a hint how gaming world works:
Designers have ZERO final say over anything that goes in game. ZERO. They can "suggest" but they have to get their designs approved, the producer and studio heads will have the final say and if they want non-consent pvp they will get it regardless of what this guy thinks or says.
That said it could mean what you want it to, but just like with the open pvp comment smed made, I'm not believing crap until its released.
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
First off there were too many PvP and PvE threads fighting over what Everquest Next is going to be, so instead of answering each one, I made my own thread.
So I grew slighty concerned as well as some of my guild-mates about the idea of the EQ IP being changed from a PvE Centric game to a Non Consensual PVP game.
I opted to Ask a number of the Developers.
The Lead Game Designer answered, and here it is:
So there you have it folks a Bad design decision. Now this most likely means that PvP will continue to be all the rage on the PvP Servers(as it has ALWAYS been) and PvE'ers will continue to be safe from torment while enjoying their gaming experience.
Spoken like a true PR flack or politician... ^^ Avoiding Bad Design Decisions is usually a Good Idea (tm)... ^^ But keep in mind that judgement plays a role in deciding what a Bad Design Decision is, and that dear old Smed brought us the NGE, so I'd not really trust his judgement that much...^^
If they wanted to be open and above board, they would simply state in clear terms what type of PvP EQN would have. The fact that they aren't being open, speaks volumes.
It is a great marketing ploy. Let everyone discuss pvp pro or con for a month in context of EGN, EQN gets a ton of word of mouth, is on everyone's lips. Do this by answering vaguely every question put to them - been working fine so far.
I dont want FFA PvP but this means nothing. This really could mean there will be server types. Flagging system, AA style 2 continents, one for open world PvP and one for PvE. You can read just about anything from that.
Comments
But you don't have a problem with different server rules do you? As long as you can PVP on a PVP server you and all the other PVPers(i play Age Of Wulin but i don't want my favorite pve built on pvp) should be happy, right?
Purple Monkey Dishwasher
Crap, someone just decided that meant EQNext was going to be set in space!
Pretty sure different server sets falls under those bad design decisions he mentioned. You know, with having to maintain two different sets of codes, and balance design and all that.
I thought that was the new npc class that players could hire to run around with them. If PvP occurs, the Purple Monkey Dishwasher runs out and absorbs the damage so the players can run away.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Using the Purple Monkey Dishwasher (tm).
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
You don't need different server rules if you use a flagging system. If you don't want to pvp then just stay neutral and don't attack anyone who is red. You can sit back and watch the fighting as a spectator.
Besides, it adds to the atmosphere of the game to have people with different preferences regarding pve and pvp all sharing the same space.
This is how I feel. I would like one server actually. I would say that whatever is in place, they are aware of people's concerns about ganking/spawn camping/griefing in general.
Chuckle, another month of idle speculation to go. Maybe more.
In the meantime, every agenda you've ever heard of has an iron in the fire.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Oh my god, if they could pull off a single server, I would be ecstatic. This is actually my number one hope for the game. It's such a difficult thing to do technically, though I don't know how feasible it would be.
That ain't nothing to do with debunking.
You just read what you wanted to.
Sanbox without PVP is just sims.
I really don't think so, SOE and Smed have always be pretty good at server rules, i don't think they would consider that bad game design.
But i'm saying if they have different server rules you won't mind, will you? After all you can still PVP on a server where everyone else shares your passion for PVPing, why wouldn't you be happy.
If there are not enough pvpers to fill the server then it obvious that it's not as popular as some of you would have us believe.
The main thing is that you can PVP, right?
Why would i want to be a spectator, i play other PVP games that are built on that system.
I'll agree that non-consentual PVP is a bad design decision if universally applied, however I'm not so sure your conclusion is sustainable.
They might surprise you with the way they decide to go about this.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
And there are people who love the sims. I hear it's very popular.
The problem with these threads is that one tidbit from someone at sony is then measured against "an individuals idea" of what constitutes a sandbox.
The only definition that matters is what Sony has in mind as that's the game they are releasing.
so people can go on and on about "what a sandbox is" but unless it's the exact definition that Sony is adhering to then many people are going to be wrong.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Smed is also an avid EVE player, who is a member of Goons (arguably one of the most powerful "guilds" in EVE) and is a regular at the FanFest in Iceland. I imagine he would consider the single server system to be a much more eloquent way of expressing a virtual world.
And, since the whole idea of EQN is to be this groundbreaking endeavor, I'd also imagine they would want to push the envelope in as many ways as possible. A single shard massive fantasy world has never been done before, and that would be sure to raise some eyebrows.
could also mean all servers will have a form of PvP, just not non-consensual as that would be a bad decision. Not all pvp is non-consensual.
Edit: Not saying that it will be that way - just saying you are living in your own little world also. There will be answers August 2nd - why not wait and see.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Maybe he doesn't think forced pvp is a bad design decision? I don't really like the idea of forced pvp, but that doesn't make it a good or bad design decision, it just means I don't like it. Bad design decision to him could mean that their is faction pvp but not ffa kill your neighbor pvp. Or ffa pvp with no consequences could be a bad design decision to him so they designed it with ffa pvp but with penalties of some kind. In the context of your question there are dozens of potential "bad design decisions." I have never seen a game where players took such tiny bits of information and made such sweeping inferences from them.
Spoken like a true PR flack or politician... ^^ Avoiding Bad Design Decisions is usually a Good Idea (tm)... ^^ But keep in mind that judgement plays a role in deciding what a Bad Design Decision is, and that dear old Smed brought us the NGE, so I'd not really trust his judgement that much...^^
If they wanted to be open and above board, they would simply state in clear terms what type of PvP EQN would have. The fact that they aren't being open, speaks volumes.
I agree. Instead of waiting until 8/2/13 a little over 1 month from now they are blowing every little vague statement out of proportion. which is, in my opinion, why SOE answers every question vaguely. So that people will jump and shout and give free word of mouth for the game.
Currently bored with MMO's.
Any decent mmo shouldn't be able to split up the game into servers of pve or pvp only. Both aspects should be tied into one another so they are both essential.
I don't care if you want to be a spectator or not. I'm just saying the option is there and a different server isn't necessary. Not everything in the game will be catered to your own preferences.
If EQ was EVER about PVP first, the people that are expecting this game to force PVP might have a valid point, but it never has.
I dislike forced PVP, most days I have at most an hour to play, I don't want to spend that hour trying to avoid people with far too much free time on their hands waiting to kill me repeatedly.
no it doesn't it just says they aren't into bad design decisions. That could mean HE considers pvp a bad design decision but here is a hint how gaming world works:
Designers have ZERO final say over anything that goes in game. ZERO. They can "suggest" but they have to get their designs approved, the producer and studio heads will have the final say and if they want non-consent pvp they will get it regardless of what this guy thinks or says.
That said it could mean what you want it to, but just like with the open pvp comment smed made, I'm not believing crap until its released.
The people that are trying to make the world worse never take a day off , why should I. Light up the darkness Bob Marley
It is a great marketing ploy. Let everyone discuss pvp pro or con for a month in context of EGN, EQN gets a ton of word of mouth, is on everyone's lips. Do this by answering vaguely every question put to them - been working fine so far.
Currently bored with MMO's.